Combine chicken pieces, olive oil, and seasonings in a non-reactive bowl and set aside to marinate for a few minutes.

Saute Italian sausage chunks in a large nonstick skillet over medium-high heat until well-browned on all sides. Transfer to a paper towel lined cookie sheet to drain. Wipe skillet with paper towels. Add chicken and saute over medium-high heat until browned on all sides. Transfer to a paper towel lined cookie sheet to drain.

Heat a large paella pan or dutch oven over medium-low heat for a few minutes. Add olive oil and heat for 1 minute. Add onions and celery. Season with salt. Sweat vegetables until soft but not brown. Add garlic. Cook 1 minute.

Add chicken pieces, sausage chunks, and shrimp to pan. Raise heat to high until the mixture returns to the boil. Lower heat to medium-low, cover pan, and allow to cook 8 more minutes or until rice is al dente and shrimp is cooked through.

Serve in large pasta bowls. Top with freshly ground Parmesan cheese and chopped fresh Italian parsley.

12/30/2005

The GOP's rush to crack down on illegal immigration takes ever more
vindictive turns. New legislation has been introduced in the House that
would make illegal immigration a felony.

"This legislation aims to prevent illegal immigration
and re-establish respect for our immigration laws," said
Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, who
introduced the legislation in the House.

"Those breaking the law will be held accountable," Mr.
Sensenbrenner said, "whether they are smugglers cruelly
trafficking in human beings, employers hiring illegal workers or alien
gang members terrorizing communities." (Link)

Apparently that includes priests and
pastors ministering to immigrants, as the US Conference of Catholic
Bishops has pointed
out:

... the application of
criminal penalties to individuals, including U.S. citizens, who assist
aliens without legal status could jeopardize church programs which
provide basic needs and life-saving assistance to these individuals.
Current federal law does not require humanitarian groups to ascertain
legal status of an individual prior to providing assistance. However,
in our view, the provisions in Section 202 of the legislation would
place parish, diocesan, and social service program staff at risk of
criminal prosecution simply for performing their job. It also could
apply to health care personnel or U.S. citizens who provide urgent or
life-saving assistance to an undocumented individual.

Did the Good Samaritan check the immigration status
of the "certain man was going down from Jerusalem to
Jericho"? Should he spend five years in jail for not doing so? Are
we so desperate to keep out Hispanics looking for a better life that we
would criminalize humanitarianism?

Update: Steve Benen, who is guest-blogging over at Kevin Drum's
place, nicely captures the rather absurd politics of the House
bill:

Indeed, in a manner of speaking, this
is a Republican "faith-based initiative" gone awry. For all
the talk about empowering churches to create "armies of
compassion," House Republicans have endorsed legislation that
essentially tells ministries, "We want you to help those in need,
but if one of the needy turns out to be in the country illegally, be
prepared to go to jail."

... as I explain in my book Corporation Law and Economics, corporate law generally ought to be enabling rather than mandatory in nature. Because director primacy is such a fundamental norm of corporate governance, however, limitations on the directors' power of fiat should be in the corporation's articles of incorporation (at least when one is dealing with a public corporation).

As I've thought about it, however, I decided that I was wrong to suggest that such limitations should be valid only if they're included in the articles of incorporation. The relevant statute is Delaware General Corporation Law section 141(a), which provides:

The business and affairs of every corporation organized under this chapter shall be managed by or under the direction of a board of directors, except as may be otherwise provided in this chapter or in its certificate of incorporation. If any such provision is made in the certificate of incorporation, the powers and duties conferred or imposed upon the board of directors by this chapter shall be exercised or performed to such extent and by such person or persons as shall be provided in the certificate of incorporation.

On its face, § 141(a) is directed to an entirely different problem than the one raised by board-initiated restrictions on the board’s powers. In particular, note the reference in the second sentence of § 141(a) to the “powers and duties” of the board being “exercised or performed” by such other persons as provided in the certificate of incorporation. This language clearly reflects a concern with the special problems of close corporations, whose shareholders often seek to modify the default rules of corporate governance so as to run the firm as though it were a partnership Delaware has a special set of statutory provisions for close corporations whose articles of incorporation contain an election to be governed by those provisions. Among the special rules applicable only to such so-called statutory close corporations is a provision authorizing shareholders to limit the powers of the board of directors by mere contract. Outside of that limited context, however, § 141(a) makes clear that any such shareholder-initiated limitation on the board’s authority must be included in the articles of incorporation. Taken as a whole, therefore, § 141(a)’s language regarding exceptions to the board’s authority is not concerned with self-imposed limitations on the board’s authority. Instead, § 141(a) is concerned with ensuring the validity of such close corporation governance provisions, while requiring that they be included in the articles of incorporation rather than by mere contract. On its face, nothing in the statute compels a conclusion that the board cannot create self-imposed limitations on its authority.

Whether someone is an employee (a.k.a. servant) or an independent contractor is a critical question for many reasons. An employer is generally responsible for torts committed by a servant, but generally is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor. Employees are entitled to various job protections that independent contractors lack. And so on.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Howard Schwab said FedEx had violated California law by classifying all of its single-route drivers as independent contractors and forcing them to incur expenses the company should have covered, including paying for fuel, oil, tires, repairs and liability insurance. The judge ordered payments ranging from a few hundred dollars to as much as $98,000 for about 200 class members. The case was tried over nine weeks last year. ...

In court, FedEx has argued that while it sets work rules for some contractors, they aren't employees because they don't have set start times, they can hire and fire workers, they use their own vehicles, and they choose their own routes.

Frank Frausto was a delivery driver for the Arizona Republic newspaper. Frausto’s car collided with a motorcycle driven by plaintiff William Santiago, who then sued the newspaper. The newspaper defended by claiming that Frausto was an independent contractor. The trial court agreed, granting the newspaper summary judgment on the issue as a matter of law. Applying an 8 factor test tracking Restatement (Second) § 220(2), the Arizona supreme court reversed and remanded for trial.

First, as to control by the alleged master, the court noted that the newspaper exercised little actual supervision, but was able to give Frausto specific instructions with the expectation that they would be followed. Pointing out that the power to fire is regarded as “one of the most effective methods of control,” the court noted that Frausto could be terminated without cause on 28 days notice and, moreover, could be terminated for unsatisfactory service without any notice. Second, the court noted that Frausto had no independent delivery business. He worked only for the newspaper, payments went to the newspaper and not the carrier, and accounts were serviced by the newspaper. This distinguished the case at bar from other newspaper carrier cases in which the delivery firm bought the newspapers from the publisher and resold them to delivery customers at a profit. Third, the court noted that being a newspaper carrier required little specialized or skilled training, which suggests that Frausto was a servant. Fourth, while the newspaper did not provide all of the necessary supplies, it did supply the newspapers and designated the route to be covered. Fifth, the court observed that the relationship was of indefinite duration, which points towards finding that Frausto was a servant. Sixth, Frausto was paid a regular weekly salary. Seventh, newspaper delivery was a core part of the publisher’s business. Finally, Frausto stated that he regarded himself as an employee. In sum, on all of the § 220 factors there was at least some support for treating Frausto as a servant and summary judgment was inappropriate.

I haven't seen Judge Schwab's decision, but my guess is that the key factors were (1) Fed Ex probably has the ability to fire the drivers on short notice if they fail to comply with instructions and (2) the drivers probably don't have an independent business (when Fed Ex comes to my door, the driver is in a Fed Ex truck wearing a Fed Ex uniform).

The business lesson is that out-sourcing only works if you outsource to a truly independent business. If you try to get the benefits of vertical integration, while avoiding the legal responsibilities that attach to a vertically integrated firm, California will put substance ahead of form.

12/29/2005

Tom Kirkendall does a great job of
explaining the likely implications of the plea deal by former Enron
chief accountant Richard Causey. In a later post, Tom details the Causey
cooperation agreement and its implications. Unlike the hyperbolic press
reports, Tom's careful analysis suggests that the plea deal may not be
as much of a problem for Lay and Skilling as the press
thinks:

... inasmuch as Causey and his
counsel have participated under a joint defense agreement with the Lay
and Skilling defense teams for over two years now, virtually any of
Causey's testimony would be subject to challenge as being derived from
that joint defense effort. Moreover, as noted in this earlier post, Causey had problems in
defending himself against the charges that Lay and Skilling do not, and
his credibility may be subject to impeachment at trial through
portrayal of the eve-of-trial plea deal as an effort to save his skin
at the expense of his co-defendants.

... this case as it stands boils down to a simple one of statutory interpretation about what has to be in the certificate. It makes sense to require any contract in this situation to be clear. That’s evident from the facts here, including the considerable uncertainty about the terms of the supposed contract, and even who the parties were – not shareholders themselves, but an institutional investor group supposedly acting on behalf of shareholders whose interests in the firm the opinion didn't specify. It follows that it’s reasonable to require agreed managerial powers to be set forth in the certificate.

The more interesting question is what the certificate should be able to provide. Specifically, should a certificate that limits the board’s power to enter into a poison pill be enforceable? I think the answer to this question as a matter of policy is clearly yes.

I think that's basically right. as I explain in my book Corporation Law and Economics, corporate law generally ought to be enabling rather than mandatory in nature. Because director primacy is such a fundamental norm of corporate governance, however, limitations on the directors' power of fiat should be in the corporation's articles of incorporation (at least when one is dealing with a public corporation).

Tobias Buckell sent along a review copy of his forthcoming novel Crystal Rain. Like SM Stirling's Raj Whitehall series, whose premise it somewhat resembles, Crystal Rain is an interesting mix of fantasy and military science fiction. It starts off a bit slow, but especially picks up pace once main POV characters John deBrun and Pepper finally hook up.

Long ago, so the stories say, the old-fathers came to Nanagada through a worm’s hole in the sky. Looking for a new world to call their own, they brought with them a rich mélange of cultures, religions, and dialects from a far-off planet called Earth. Mighty were the old-fathers, with the power to shape the world to their liking---but that was many generations ago, and what was once known has long been lost. Steamboats and gas-filled blimps now traverse the planet, where people once looked up to see great silver cities in the sky.

Like his world, John deBrun has forgotten more than he remembers. Twenty-seven years ago, he washed up onto the shore of Nanagada with no memory of his past. Although he has made a new life for himself among the peaceful islanders, his soul remains haunted by unanswered questions about his own identity.

These mysteries take on new urgency when the fearsome Azteca storm over the Wicked High Mountains in search of fresh blood and hearts to feed their cruel, inhuman gods. Nanagada’s only hope lies in a mythical artifact, the Ma Wi Jung, said to be hidden somewhere in the frozen north. And only John deBrun knows the device’s secrets, even if he can’t remember why or how.

Tobias is an active blogger and is making a very aggressive effort to market the book through the blogosphere and I suspect it'll pay off. Buckell writes cleanly and skillfully, has a deft touch with plot twists, and is as good a world builder as any. What starts out shaping up as a Caribbean take on medieval fantasy turns into what Andrew Wheeler aptly calls "a lost-colony SF novel, low-tech division, conflict between more powerful alien races sub-division." Along the way, Buckell neatly avoids the Dark Lord cliche by creating bad guys who have some moral nuance. If I wasn't quite convinced by the ending, it was a plausible outcome and the ride getting there was fun.

I wouldn't put Buckell in the same class as my current favorites Charles Stross and John Scalzi, but I'd slot this book at about the same level as Andre Norton's best work, which is a pretty high standard IMHO.

A while back, I wrote a post entitled
What might have been, in which I argued that President Bush's
decision to go to war in Iraq had "pissed away the conservative
moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the
criminally incompetent" and asked:

We
control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and
(more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5
decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller?
Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more
protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative
majority?

Finally, I criticized Bush for giving us
nothing but unrelenting positive spin.

President
Bush shifted his rhetoric on Iraq in recent weeks after an intense
debate among advisers about how to pull out of his political free fall,
with senior adviser Karl Rove urging a campaign-style attack on critics
while younger aides pushed for more candor about setbacks in
the war, according to Republican strategists. ...

The lessons drawn by a variety of Bush advisers inside and outside
the White House as they map a road to recovery in 2006 include these:
Overarching initiatives such as restructuring Social Security
are unworkable in a time of war. The public wants a balanced
appraisal of what is happening on the battlefield as well as pledges of
victory. And Iraq trumps all.

"I don't think they realized that Iraq is the totality of their
legacy until fairly recently," said former congressman Vin Weber
(R-Minn.), an outside adviser to the White House. "There
is not much of a market for other issues." ...

As the year ends, only some litigation limits have passed, and
Social Security, tax and immigration plans are dead or
comatose.

We can debate whether invading
Iraq was a necessary step in the War on Terror. What we can no longer
debate is that the Iraq War has brought the larger conservative agenda
to a crashing halt, wasting a moment for which many of us in the
conservative movement have waited for decades, and if public
perceptions of the GOP don't improve soon, threatening to undermine the
conservative realignment for which we long hoped. As I observed in that
earlier post:

The conservative
agenda has advanced hardly at all since the Iraq War began. Worse yet,
the growing unpopularity of the war threatens to undo all the electoral
gains we conservatives have achieved in this decade. Stalwarts like me
are not going to vote for Birkenstock wearers no matter how bad things
get in Iraq, but what about the proverbial soccer moms? Gerrymandering
probably will save the House for us at least through the 2010
redistricting, but what about the Senate and the White
House?

At the end of the day, that may
well be George Bush's legacy. If so, he'll go down as the Impostor Bruce Bartlett's forthcoming book accuses him of
being.

12/28/2005

I can't quite tell whether the market needs a valium or not. On the
plus side, consumer confidence is way up. On the other hand, the yield curve keeps flirting with inverting, which is a
traditional signal of investor lack of confidence and a frequent
leading indicator of a recession. Also on the down side:

... more and more Americans seem to be stressed out,
miserable and depressed, according to two new opinion polls. One long
term survey shows that personal misery among Americans is at its
highest levels since the early 1990s, with people saddled with woes
over healthcare, unemployment, paying bills and romance. (Link)

It's all very puzzling,
which makes it a good time to be in passively managed index funds. Of
course, if you believe Burton Malkiel, as I do, anytime is a good time to be in
passively managed index funds.

12/27/2005

Earler today I
posted an excerpt from Jeffrey Hart's provocative essay The Burke
Habit, in which Hart discussed the role of ntaionalism in
conservative thought. In that essay, Hart also raised some very good
points about the conservative attitude towards the
market:

American conservatism emerged
during a period when socialism in various forms had become a tacit
orthodoxy. The thought of Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Milton
Friedman informed its understanding of economic questions. At length,
the free market triumphed through much of the world, and today there
are very few socialists in major university economics departments, an
almost total transformation since 1953. But the utopian temptation can
turn such free-market thought into a utopianism of its own--that is,
free markets to be effected even while excluding every other value and
purpose . . .

. . . such as Beauty, broadly defined. The desire for Beauty may be
natural to human beings, like other natural desires. It appeared early,
in prehistoric cave murals. In literature (for example, Dante) and in
other forms of representation--painting, sculpture, music,
architecture--Heaven is always beautiful, Hell ugly. Plato taught that
the love of Beauty led to the Good. Among the needs of civilization is
what Burke called the "unbought grace of life."

The word "unbought" should be pondered. Beauty has been
clamorously present in the American Conservative Mind through its
almost total absence. The tradition of regard for woodland and wildlife
was present from the beginnings of the nation and continued through
conservative exemplars such as the Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who
established the National Parks. Embarrassingly for conservatives (at
least one hopes it is embarrassing), stewardship of the environment is
now left mostly to liberal Democrats.

Not all ideas and initiatives by liberals are bad ones. Burke's
unbought beauties are part of civilized life, and therefore ought to
occupy much of the Conservative Mind. The absence of this consideration
remains a mark of yahooism and is prominent in Republicanism today. As
if by an intrinsic law, when the free market becomes a kind of
utopianism it maximizes ordinary human imperfection--here, greed, short
views and the resulting barbarism.

Jeffrey Hart has a very provocative piece on the
state of American conservatism. Two parts jumped out at me as being
worthy of discussion or, perhaps more precisely, highlighting. First,
the role of the nation:

Soft utopianism
speaks of the "nation-state" as if it were a passing
nuisance. But the Conservative Mind knows that there must be much that
is valid in the idea of the nation, because nations are rooted in
history. Arising out of tribes, ancient cosmological empires,
theocracies, city-states, imperial systems and feudal organization, we
now have the nation. Imperfect as the nation may be, it alone--as far
as we know--can protect many of the basic elements of civilized
existence.

What Hart doesn't discuss here is the
possibility that the United States is not a nation-state but rather a
state-nation. Albert Wesibord writes:

What is a "nation," as we ought properly to use
the term? Historically, a "nation" (a term derived from the
Latin nascere, to be born) is developed from the "tribe," an
enlarged "clan," which is, in turn, an enlarged
"family" or "kindred." The "nation" has a
base of common ancestry and blood relationship without which there
could be no family, no kindred, no clan, and thus tribe. Various tribes
of common origin may bind themselves into a brotherhood of
"phratry" but when this occurs no "nation" has as
yet developed, only the basis for one. ... At what point then did the
United States become a "nation"? In our opinion never, for
this process was blocked by slavery of the Africans and by an
overwhelming non-English immigration from
Europe.

Or, as Wikipedia puts it:

The term "state-nation" is sometimes used, for
nations where the common identity derives from shared citizenship of a
state. It implies that the state was formed first, and that the sense
of national identity developed later, or in parallel.

Hence, Everett Ladd argues that
"America is an idea -- a set of beliefs about people and their
relationships and the kind of society which holds the best hope of
satisfying the needs each of us brings as an individual."

This is a distinct challenge for American conservatism, especially
the Anglophile strain represented by Russell Kirk, which looks back to
English Tories like Edmund Burke for historical precedent and guidance.
American conservatism thus finds itself torn between the polar extremes
of nativists desperate to preserve a purported Anglo-American culture
and open borders business types who seem to care nothing for cultural
traditions (think National Review versus WSJ editorial board). One
hopes for a middle ground, in which American remains open to anyone who
embraces the "American idea," regardless of race or creed,
while also striving to ensure assimilation to that idea.

12/26/2005

The thought of the U.S. fighting a Thirty
Years War or engaging in something akin to the Peloponnesian War (which
lasted 27 years) is unthinkable. These were wars fought by aristocrats,
not democrats, who want chiefly to get on with their pleasurable
lives.

Epstein says that like it's a bad thing.
Personally, I'm increasingly convinced that the Powell Doctrine
is the only sensible warmaking policy in the modern American polity.
Again, let's see what Epstein says:

... why
should democracies find it so difficult to start and to finish wars?
Tocqueville's response is complex: The martial spirit is less in
democracies than in aristocracies; moreover, "the wealthiest, best
educated, most capable citizens of democratic nations are unlikely to
pursue careers in the military." Citizens in a democracy have
"an excessive love of tranquility," and war gets in the way
of their striving for increased wealth and material comfort.
Tocqueville himself wasn't opposed to war. He thought it "almost
always enlarges the thought and ennobles the heart." But he felt
that democracies were not in the best condition to wage
it.

Does anybody still really believe that
war "almost always enlarges the thought and ennobles the
heart"? It is a necessary evil, at best. When we wage it, we
should go in hard and fast with overwhelming force and get out just as
fast.

It's one thing for a college professor to express opinions on
matters germane to the subject matter of the class, as when my Econ 101
professor left no doubt about his belief that markets work better than
bureaucracies when it comes to setting prices. It is quite another,
however, for a professor to use his bully pulpit and captive audience
to express opinions on matters not germane to the subject matter of the
course, as a Pennsylvania physics professor allegedly
did:

"How could this happen?"
Ms. Brown asked Representative Gibson C. Armstrong two summers ago,
complaining about a physics professor at the York campus of
Pennsylvania State University who she said routinely used class time to
belittle President Bush and the war in Iraq. As an Air Force veteran,
Ms. Brown said she felt the teacher's comments were inappropriate for
the classroom.

The encounter has blossomed into an official legislative inquiry,
putting Pennsylvania in the middle of a national debate spurred by
conservatives over whether public universities are promoting largely
liberal positions and discriminating against students who disagree with
them.

The deniers and minimizers, of course, are
quick to dismiss complaints:

"Mechanisms exist to address these glitches and to
fix them," said Joan Wallach Scott, a professor at the Institute
for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and former chairwoman of the
professors association committee on academic freedom, in testimony at
the Pennsylvania Legislature's first hearing. "There is no need
for interference from outside legislative or judicial
agencies."

Sorry, but when was the
last time you ever heard of a college professor being disciplined for
veering off topic to attack conservatives? And, at least as far as
state colleges are concerned, why shouldn't the tax payers
representatives have a role in ensuring that the classroom is not a
hostile learning environment? Speaking as an instructor at a state
school, I would welcome such oversight.

As a St. Louis resident and a member of the Catholic church, I am deeply offended and saddened by the actions of Archbishop Raymond L. Burke and his team of prosecutors attempting to uphold canon law ("Out of Line: A Catholic Parish Pays High Price for Independence," page one, Dec. 20). He would be best served adopting a philosophy made popular by the bracelets seen worn by Christians throughout the country: WWJD -- What Would Jesus Do? Canon law is as a matter of historical fact; man's law, not God's law. If this debate was held in front of the Pearly Gates, I am quite confident the outcome wouldn't result in the excommunication of devoted parishioners and clergy. Although I don't typically attend St. Stanislaus, I plan to attend Christmas Mass at that parish to show my support for the parishioners' mission. I don't, however, plan to repent in any way for spending time worshipping with a devoted group of followers who are simply asserting their independence under the leadership of a bishop engaged in a land-grab under the guise of a divine quest.

Pohlman's letter reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of Catholic theology; indeed, the implicit premise of Pohlman's letter is the core Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. It is a core tenet of Catholic belief that the Church's magisterial teaching is authoritative:

We are talking not about an optional or secondary aspect of the faith, but about that which in final analysis makes Catholics Catholic and separates Catholics from other Christians. Acceptance of the magisterium and assent to the magisterium is the identifying Catholic belief.

In a real sense magisterium is an identifying mark of the Catholic Church, and acceptance of the magisterium is an identifying mark of the Catholic. In this ecumenical age I have come to understand the different Christian communities as differing indeed in doctrine, but differing also according to where they place final ecclesial authority under Christ. For the Orthodox it is the Patriarchate; for the Episcopalians it was the episcopoi or bishops; for the Presbyterians the presbytery; for the Congregationalists the individual congregation; and for the Baptists, no authority exists above the individual Christian. But for Catholics, as Section 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council teaches, final authority under Christ is found in the Pope and bishops, just as in the New Testament it reposed in Peter and the Apostles. (Link)

The canon law Pohlman so cavalierly dismisses is a core part of the magisterium:

... the lay Christian faithful are bound by the obligations and possess the rights which are enumerated in the canons of this title. (Canon 224)

What we have here thus is an example of the basic problem of the American Catholic Church; namely, the belief that the Church is a cafeteria.